The Lefebvrists do not want to give up the good life and interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise. There could be tension.
Now life is easy since they use the same false premise as the Left to interpret the Council.
Now they say they accept the Council but do not qualify if they refer to Vatican Council II interpretd with or without the premise.The ambiguity is useful for them.
Joseph Shaw, Thomas Pink and John Lamont avoid this issue. Since they have to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise to keep their teaching jobs as professors of theology and philosophy in England and Australia.
At Una Voce International they do not comment on the issue of the false premise in the interpretation of the Council.It is the same for the Lepanto Foundation and the Remnant News.Here we have liberals who go for Mass in Latin.
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf wants to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise like Pope Francis and the Bologna School of Alberto Melloni in Italy.
Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, the Holdebrands and Fr. Nicholas Gruner they are all interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise.Then they express their surprise or disappointment with the expected non traditional conclusion.Then they blame the Council and not themselves.
John Henry Weston continues to post reports on Vatican Council II on Life Site News but does not touch the subject of the false premise.Since then people would expect him to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise and so affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
The Lefebvrists have thought out this issue among themselves and have decided to let this issue remain ambigous.Peter Kwasniewski and Taylor Marshall are also into this and is Archbishop Carlo Vigano.
Christopher Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II and they interpreted the Council with the false premise. They do not acknowledge it, deny or or issue an apology. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment